Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
CA....
Not in the slightest.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ...
Why did you stop?
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.That would be a violation of the right of Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."
Article 1, Section 8. Not the 2nd Amendment.
A 2nd A case on the question of incorporation simply hasn't reached the high court yet. But that doesn't mean the doctrine doesn't apply. It just hasn't been officially declared.
Given the way the incorporation doctrine has been applied, the 2nd must be incorporated by any honest judge. Whether we've got 5 honest judges on the USSC, time will tell. Since they decided Heller correctly (mostly), I think they'll do the just and right thing.
And perhaps old law would be the best in a perfect strict-constructionist world, but that hasn't been the case in this area of law since Mapp v. Ohio.
...cause she doesn’t wasnt fair and just rulings. She wants more power for browns and the govt. She wants a Hispanocracy.
Cruikshank and Presser were BOTH subsequent to the enactment of the 14th Amendment.
Please don't invent your "facts."
The more I listen to him talk without the intervention of speechwriters and teleprompters, the more I am convinced that he couldn't litigate his way out of a paper bag.
He would be chewed up and spit out by a newly-minted ADA fresh out of law school and holding her first case file. He simply hasn't got what it takes.
agreed
I disagree vigorously as to the "misleading" effect that phrase has, in isolation. Most people conflate "2nd amendment" with "RKBA," so when SCOTUS says "2nd amendment only binds the feds," the conclusion reached by many (and EXPRESSLY reached by Circuit Courts) is that states may infringe the RKBA.
But when one "reads on" within the Presser case, one finds that the Presser Court did not green light infringement of the RKBA by states.
Isolating the "2nd amendment only binds the feds" phrase is the device that is used to reach the incorrect legal conclusion that states may infringe the RKBA, until the feds "incorporate" the 2nd. That's a gross misread of the Presser opinion.
I'm incredulous that you do not find such an application of the Presser precedent to be misleading in the slightest.
-- Article 1, Section 8. Not the 2nd Amendment. --
RKBA is what I said, not 2nd amendment; and not depending on 2nd amendment.
I thought the Slaughterhouse line of cases is supposed to be dead. It is, except when it comes to firearms. There, Presser and Cruikshank still survive to this day, despite the original intent of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
Presser sucks. Sotomayor sucks for supporting that precident.
Or this: "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Or this: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Or this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
But it's here now, and it's law in just about every aspect of the BOR. The 3rd has not come up (quartering of soldiers) and the 7th trial by jury hasn't been addressed because every state provides for trial by jury.
But most states have their own guarantee of the right to bear arms, and of course it's 'endowed by the Creator' anyhow. Getting it incorporated will save trouble, however.
That's because the RKBA was taken as a given. You don't see any right to build a house in the Constitution, do you? Same sort of issue.
It's only misleading to encourage them to continue in that error. The right to keep and bear arms did not originate with the 2nd Amendment and is not dependent on it for its existence.
So fear of something else, which we don’t see, don’t know, and haven’t got, is the rule for acceptance of what is bad, evil, and non principled, which we do see, do know, and have got before us!!!?
“The only thing to fear is fear itself”, as someone once put it.
The debasement of the Constitution and destruction of original intent by judicial legislation has indeed been progressive. So what?
the 7th trial by jury hasn't been addressed because every state provides for trial by jury.
The states are all over the place regarding which offenses merit jury trials and which don't. Please stop inventing your "facts."
Cruikshank and Presser aren't anti-RKBA. They have been deliberately misconstrued by federal courts, in a completely successful effort at rewriting precedent.
SCOTUS helped rewrite Miller too, by stating that Miller was convicted, and that SCOTUS conclusively decided that the 2nd amendment does not cover short-barrel shotguns. Utterly FALSE.
An it’s Tommy this and Tommy that and ‘chuck’im out, the brute’. But it’s Saviour of ‘is country when the guns begin to shoot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.